Printable View
Looks like the people who make money with with scaring children into loyal taxpayers have found a new aproach to preach DESTRUCTION BY CO2!!!!!11!!!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...s-2168418.html
It's possible of course, if human-made global warming existed, which it doesn't. But it can't be true as in 2010 Dutch kids won't know what snow is. It's in the schoolbooks of 2002 so it must be true.
In the meantime I had another ad hominum from these snowball-damiens.
hoax, just like acid rain
Except “acid rain” wasn't a hoax... :shrug:
Yea. And chances are that the atmospheric sulphur which caused it also contributed to the global cooling scare. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Eh? I think you've skipped a lesson or two in chemistry class there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
global warming brings ice age... nothing new melting under the sun.
Nope. That's the rationale for global cooling in the 70's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Has to do with particle content -> cloud formation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Now they don't have the December data yet, but Fragony was november warmer or colder than normal?
linky. See the thing is that global doesn't mean local.
Oh, you mean you won't notice the difference between SO2 and H2SO4 ? How about HNO3?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Here's a hint: crack open a good, old, lead-acid battery (H2SO4). Compare it to freshly opened Château Migraine (SO2).
“Acid rain” certainly has a lot to do with particle content & cloud formation. However to write it (and thus the effects) off as a hoax smacks of living in blissful ignorance of some of the more obvious chemical properties of “acid rain”, nevermind how church restoration not uncommonly involves repairing damage from acids.
Global warming is a charade to scare the public, but the moooslims destroying our European way of life with their evil foreign-ness is a legitimate concern?
Before 1989, in Eastern Europe, entire forests dissapeared. Fish glowed green in the dark. Frogs had six, eight, thirteen legs. And the Politbureaus told the populace that nothing was going on, that there really wasn't an ecological disaster unfolding before their very eyes.
Eventually the people got sick of it, had a revolution, and started cleaning up.
Meanwhile in the West, corporations have discovered that the internets is full of useful idiots who will do their work for them. Buy some bogus science, send private eyes to rummage through the waste of real scientific institues until you find some inevitable sleaze, and voilà, you've bought yourself a few decades time to carry on with the pluder, the slash-and-burn capitalism. Sheer plunder. Or better yer, sheer socialism, in that the ecological costs are socialised.
Strangely, whenever some ecological disaster involves Chinese mining, or nine year old girls in India, or Communist practises, the disasters are believed to be true. When it concerns western corporations or governments, the unfolding disasters are invariably considered alarmist nonsense, leftists scaremongering.
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Where's my boring, ah there it isQuote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
@TA, yes acid rain was also a hoax, no such thing as acid rain ever existed. Not the kind that killed all the trees all life et moi in 2000 at least.
Flaggalants and clever lobbyists
It must be wonderful to know that one is always correct, and that everyone who disagrees with you only does so because he's stupid, ignorant, detached from reality or brainwashed....Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
That one wasn't directed at you, Idaho...if that wasn't obvious
Irony must be a hard lossQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
ya rlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I wouldn't write off 'Climategate' so easily. It exposed some serious negligence by the people providing the primary data and analysis that are driving climate policies that effect economies and lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
"Slash and burn"? At a nearby refinery, they just finished applying for an air operating permit from the government. That's the standard permit for everyday operations. They already had one, they just needed to get it renewed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
It took them ten years.
(fulfilling all the requirements the government wanted, getting the data, revising, etc.)
So you should understand I take your fear mongering about corporations running rampant over the environment with two metric tons of salt.
And if the same people a few years ago claiming children wouldn't see snow in 2010 are now claiming that warming is causing blizzards, perhaps we shouldn't accept such claims blindly.
Nor is climategate trivial; it revealed the fudging of scientific data to push a political agenda.
CR
Slashing and burning, how about digging and mining. To make even 10% durable costs more than the earth has to offer. And oil isn't running out for a while (that was also a hoax, club of Rome)
edit: ROFL@Green party, according to these morally and intellectually superior carrotblitz-brigades terrace-heating should be VERBOTEN.
They are against 'warming up air'. Yes they actually said it. And this is not a religion gimme a break. Forgive me Gaia for I have consumed, watermelons, may look green but it's all red inside
The warmists have been found out and they don't like it. A very hot summer? That's global warming. Three of the coldest winters on record? That's also global warming. Experiencing a drought? Proof of global warming. Flooding? Yep you guessed it, global warming.
Heads you win, tails I lose.
It's a scam. A rip off. A con trick.
It would be amusing if it wasn't having such a tragic effect on people. Here in the UK 30% of all fuel bills goes towards renewable energy. That's those windmills lads, the ones that actually suck electricity from the grid. It's estimated that upwards of 35, 000 people will freeze to death in the UK this winter. How many could have been saved if their fuel bills were reduced by 30%?
Then there's the hilarious retort that the science is settled. LMFAO. Science is never settled. Theories are discredited all the time. That's how it should be. Anything else is faith. Like the Great Pixie in the sky.
I understand the unwillingness to admit that you've been had. I too was conned along with the rest and it took me a long time to come to terms with it. I swallowed this guff for over twenty years.
Now I'm just as mad as hell at the bastards. :embarassed:
Much more eloquent than I.Quote:
Governments love the issue because it provides a good excuse for more taxes, regulation and bureaucracy. Scientists love it because it provides grant money and subsidies, as well as fancy trips to exotic locales on someone else’s dime. Government bureaucrats love it for that too (actually, everyone involved loves it for that). Socialists love it because it shows the evils of capitalism. Environmentalists love it because it shows the evils of civilization. Religious leaders love it because it shows the evils of humanity. Statists love it because it seems to be a problem that can only be solved with a bigger state. Corporations love it because they can get government subsidies to pretend to invent “green” products that people can pretend will solve the non-existent problem. Guilt-ridden middle class liberals love it because it helps them to feel alive for a few brief moments before the emptiness returns. Celebrities love it because it gives them a feel good issue to advocate for in order to assuage their guilt over their own extreme wealth and lavish lifestyles. Pretty much every member of the political and intellectual class has a stake in this issue surviving, and so it probably will
http://theemptiness.info/2010/12/hap...rming-is-over/
'Turning back halfway is better than getting lost completely' as we say here. But it does keeps amazing me how people gob these lies up. Must be the very young age at which it all starts, and the suffocating social control when an individual is in doubt
So what happened to the ozone hole?
Is everything all better now?
There's not enough money in it. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Not really, we are all going to die IF WE DON'T ACT RIGHT NOW after allQuote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I agree on the top comment, since two years isn't enough for a trend (and NAO and AO has been heavily negative before). But I'm going to repeat that global temperature isn't the same as local temperature and recommend reading about the North Atlantic Ocillation (NAO) and the Artic Ocillation (AO).Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
This year still have a good shot of being the warmest year measured for example, see link above (NOAA got a very good homepage).
Cheap oil is running out. And you can check out the area around fort MacKay to see what the best replacement does. Those lakes are poisonous wastewater btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Edit:
Thanks to reduced emissions, the ozone hole no longer increasing and if current emission decrease still ongoing, the non-polar parts of the ozone layer decrease will be back to pre 1980 levels in about 2050. The hole itself is expected to last much longer.
If you're to throw out this stuff, you could at least read about it.
Like acid rain, that Greek marble has been more affected by acid rain in the last 100 years, than the more than 2000 years before it, is no sign at all that acid rain is real. Calcination of lakes to prevent them from dying was done by the big metal hand in the sky before now obviously, since the lakes would've been dead otherwise.
Nothing to do with Climate Change. It is the privatization of the energy companies and them constantly trying to suck the money out of the population, by constantly rising prices while experiencing massive profits. It isn't anything to do with renewable energy either, since their biggest excuse is the price of oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
....and how many could've been saved not just this winter, but all year long, if their income was increased by 30%?
But nah, let's not go for the obvious solution and give the poor more money.... Let's lower one of their expenses instead, while we increase the others, that way it'll look like we're doing something to help, thus giving us a clear conscience, while we don't have to raise their standard of living one bit. Yeah, that's what we should do!
No it isn't. It's government policy. Do some research.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
You should go on the stage, you're a laugh a minute. :laugh4:Quote:
....and how many could've been saved not just this winter, but all year long, if their income was increased by 30%?
But nah, let's not go for the obvious solution and give the poor more money.... Let's lower one of their expenses instead, while we increase the others, that way it'll look like we're doing something to help, thus giving us a clear conscience, while we don't have to raise their standard of living one bit. Yeah, that's what we should do!
How will reducing fuel bills by 30% stop a homeless man from freezing to death under a bridge?
You offering him a place to sleep perhaps, but such humanity is strictly theory no. I actually do thatQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
There are no homeless people where I live, I don't have the opportunity...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Socialist paradise and all that ya know ~;)
Are you serious? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
If he's homeless he won't have any bills to pay. Honestly. :dizzy2:
.....yes...... that was kinda the point....so......how does your proposal to slash fuel bills by 30% do anything to prevent a homeless guy from freezing to death then?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to provide him with a place to live so he doesn't have to freeze to death outside?
Oh really, never saw so many homeless as I did in Norway, parks are packed with junkies at night, don't you go thereQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I don't live in Oslo, so no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Got a private socialist paradise?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Talk about missing the point spectacularly......:juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Norway is a bit more than just the capital, even though it may not look like it all the time...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I know, lotsa trees, and homeless people. Better dental-care would allow them to eat themQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
And all the homeless people(or drug addicts, as they're more commonly known) go to Oslo, where they have a couple of spots to hang out at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Where I live, there are still no homeless people.
Oh, and a few of the illegal immigrants are homeless too of course, those who could've been a resource to society instead of being forced into hiding, but that's another debate.
Yeah it really is. Never been to Oslo by the way, only been to Bergen, sounds like I should keep things like thatQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Bergen isn't part of Norway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Yes it is, second biggest city, thought Norway was more than just the capital you said soQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
It is bigger than just Oslo, but Bergen still isn't a part of it... Check your atlas. And if it says its a part of Norway, they're FILTHY LIARS!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Not lying about it being in Norway though, but when it comes to stubborn denial there's a Swedish in everyone I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
LIES!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Though I salute your attempt to ease the situation with some good old fashioned swede-bashing ~:)
Bashing Sweden is the duty of every sane person. But Bergen is still in Norway.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
That's like saying Estonia is part of Spain. Just plain wrong...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I am sure there are large numbers of Norwegians who would disagree with you.
Then they would be either ignorant, liars or irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
All true Norwegians will agree. ~;)
Sigurd is from Bergen.
Sigurd is way more of a viking than HoreTore.
-> Bergen is in Norway!
The Danes and Swedes were also Vikings, yet neither Stockholm nor Copenhagen is part of Norway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Your argument is flawed. Bergen still isn't part of Norway. Something most people from Bergen will agree to, btw...
What is this Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Finland stuff? I thought I got rid of them by uniting Scandinavia ten thousand times or so in EU3.
Now you're just trying to get me mad.................Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Since Iceland was historically owned by both Norway and Denmark, and Finland was owned by Sweden, I would argue they are part of Scandinavia. These areas were also controlled by 'Scandinavia' during the Kalmar Union as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Everybody always forget poor Greenland, I mean it isn't THAT small, just kinda cold and barren. Like Norway
Greenland is not independent, it is controlled by Denmark (though has some autonomous control). It would be saying "What about the Faroe islands?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
@ HoreTore
So, tell us, to whom dose Bergen belong?
I am assuming that you say they are not Norwegian because they talk funny. Their official written language is Nynorsk instead of Bokmål but they don't quite speak either and it is sort of an odd brand of Norsk they use.
But if they aren't Norwegian then who should get the taxes?
Just not as cold as here these days, at least not in southern Greenland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Well, your heat had to go somewhere. It's slighly more concentrated towards the Hudson Bay area though. Funny weather page, if a bit unstable.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Don't care, so long as they're not a part of Norway... Give it to the Jews.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Wrong on every count.... Nice try though. Their dialect is but one of their crimes against humanity, there's no such thing as an "official written language" as that would be illegal and like everywhere else most people use bokmål and their dialect isn't any weirder than most other dialects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Your "argument" is irrelevant, as the simple fact is that "Scandinavia" means "Norway, Sweden and Denmark". You're thinking of a different geographic region, called "The North"(norwegian: "Norden", sometimes "nordic countries"), which also includes Finland and Iceland. No point in "arguing" any further my friend, these are the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Horetore, can you comment on the English military's fascination with Bergen? Link
They seem to have "visited" a bit frequently for a place that's just a touch farther from Brighton than, say, Calais...
But the concept of Scandinavia came into existence when Finland and Iceland didn't exist and were owned by Sweden/Norway/Denmark. So those areas were under the control of the three powers.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Then if you go geographically speaking, only Norway and Sweden are on the Scandinavian peninsula. However, looking at the map, the area known as the Baltic Shield (Fennoscandinavia) looks "together" in the same way Britain does, the Iberian peninsula, Italian peninsula, etc.
Ultimately, common English usage of the term Scandinavia is the Nordic countries, for many different reasons and concepts.
Well the English government is keen on a friendly Norway due to our coastline being quite ideal to harrass England with, and Bergen is a major port on our west coast... Might be it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Wrong at the start. The "concept of Scandinavia" pre-dates our nation states by a milennium, the Romans were the ones who came up with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Then the english language is wrong, plain and simple. It isn't common usage in any of the correct languagues, ie. Norwegian, Swedish or Danish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar